list_scenariosList all test scenarios in the active project. Scenarios are multi-step workflows that chain test cases with variable passing and conditional execution. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of scenarios to skip (for pagination, default 0) | |
| take | No | Number of scenarios to return (default 50, max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the tool is read-only, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds a behavioral note about requiring project context, which is useful but not extensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that convey both the core function and a helpful definition of the resource. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and why it exists. It does not specify the return format, but that is not strictly necessary given the simplicity of the operation and the lack of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (skip and take) are fully covered by the schema with clear defaults and constraints. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but not contributory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'test scenarios in the active project,' making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also defines what scenarios are, distinguishing them from simple test cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that it requires project context, which is a precondition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_test_cases or list_scenario_runs. More direct guidance on when this tool is the right choice would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.